tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 30, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
>> thank you, you have a truly fitting name for a hero. in the dark world of human trafficking, these brave men and women are like and thank you for shining -- light and thank you for shining on us today. they are a source of hope for trafficking victims and a source for inspiration for all who strive to make the world a more humane that is why i'm honored to share the stage with these individuals. the world needs antitrafficking solutions across orders and industry sector yours.
none of us can and human trafficking alone. we need each other. in my time as ambassador i have witnessed the power of collaboration and these actions. i recently participated in the vatican summit on human trafficking which focused on improving our legal system by emphasizing humanitarian values and eradicating corruption. the summit explored the need for victim supported services instead of punishments for crimes committed under duress. while pope francis has a unique ability to rally diverse groups, leaders across communities, businesses, governments and ngo's can likewise demonstrate the power of collaboration in fighting the scourge of modern slavery.
the united nations is also coordinating to combat trafficking. in a historic session on human trafficking in situations of armed conflict, the u.n. security council called upon member states to bring justice to those who exploit others, proactively identify trafficking victims among vulnerable populations, and comprehensively address victims' needs. the security council meeting was bolstered by the brave testimony of one who escaped from slavery after isil attacked her village. testimony and's that of others like her exposes the human capacity for cruelty, i remain optimistic about the future, optimistic that the world is more interconnected and proactive in fighting human trafficking than ever before. optimistic that with help, survivors can move jan the pain
that so and optimistic many individuals here in the united states and around the world are united in combating modern slavery. while the challenges are daunting, we cannot forget that optimism is a job requirement for all of us who work in this arena. we join you in encouraging continued progress across prosecution, and prevention of crime, and look towards increased international cooperation and a new generation of heroes to keep our faith in humanity alive. thank you all for coming today. [applause] thank you.
up on the release this morning, the state department briefing on the 2016 human trafficking report, the ambassador will answer reporters questions. we will have that live at 2:00 eastern. just before that at 1:00 this the national transportation safety board representative will speak to reporters at the national press club about self driving cars and what they mean for safety on american roads, live in just under an hour, 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i am pleased the senate as a body has come to this conclusion. television in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all
americans to be better informed of the problems and the issues which face this nation on a day by day basis. >> during the election i had the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign, and she decided to come to shake my hand and take a photograph. wonderful woman. she wasn't asking for anything. i was very grateful that she took the time to come by. it was an unexceptional moment except for the fact that she was born in 1894. she was an african-american woman who had been born in louisiana, born in the shadow of slavery, born at a time when lynchings were commonplace, born at a time when african-americans and women could not vote. took our country from the time of its founding until the
mid-1980's to build of a national debt of $850 billion, which was the size of this so-called stimulus package when it came over here. we are talking about real borrowed money. >> 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. senate democrats today called on republicans to cut short the july 4 congressional recess to continue work on legislation to fund programs to research and prevent the spread of the zika virus tried the senators were joined at the news conference this morning by the executive vice president of land parenthood. -- planned parenthood. thee have to hurry because senate is about to go back into .ession
you are going to hear from me and senator schumer, and then we are fortunate to have the executive director of planned parenthood with us. we appreciate her being here, we appreciate all of you being here . we wanted to show you today -- here is the new majority. that's it. those are the days we are in session. 's. -- pretty sparse. whatever happened to working around here? i mean, really. remember, some of you remember
we would be here friday and saturday because we had an issue that was really important. we could not leave without it we are going on a seven-week vacation in about eight or nine days. unless republicans become a will havee zika no work done at nih, cdc. there is no money left to do work on zika. vaccine research, other efforts to protect americans could stop without immediate action. we should be meeting today to work something out on zika. remember, we passed overwhelmingly a bill, the -- it was the house
$1.1 billion emergency funding, unpaid for. we know what happened when it went to the house. because paul ryan operates under they could not have a bill that had any sense to it. they could not take our will, which was reasonable. back a bill that was just -- that's the only way they can get things done, majority to majority. they will not be able to get anything done on zika ever unless they get democratic votes. whacked veterans 1/2 of $1
billion. that money was going to be used for processing claims that they always complained about. of course we know what they did whatplanned parenthood, they did with environmental issues. i had to take a whack at the clean water act to satisfy a few of them. we think we would like to be able to fly confederate flags and military cemeteries. they sent it to a straight despite the fact that we sent them a decent bill, this is what they sent back. what did the republican leader do? nothing. he accepted that. i would hope everyone understands that we are where we are.
this is an emergency if there ever were an emergency. we don't know the exact number. there is well over 2000 people who have beenay bitten by this mosquito, they have the zika virus. how many women who are part of this makes are pregnant. at last report we had 8 or 9 babies born with these deformities. most of those babies will die. this is really outrageous that we are going to go on vacation while this national emergency is pending. senator schumer? schumber: thank you, senator reid. back ande a step remember how we got here today.
republican senate headed out of town for recess without having passed a dime in funding to address the zika vrisis. earlier this year the experts at cdc and nih requested $1.9 billion to keep us safe from zika. republicans twiddle their thumbs for months while zika spread. they're paralyzed at the hard right. they don't want to spend money even national emergencies. after months of pressure from senate democrats, republicans joined us at the negotiation table to pass a $1.1 billion bill. we wanted $1.9 billion. they have 1.1 billion dollars. our compromise with the republican leadership and senate led to a bill that passed the senate with 89 votes, whopping
majorities on both sides. came time to conference with the house and all of a sudden the republicans went act to their mr. hyde -- back to their mr. hyde reality. they got together, put every kind of poison pill in that bill they knew that democrats could not accept, and sent it over without consulting a single democrat even though they knew they needed democratic votes to pass it. result -- and they said, take it or leave it. they took the zika funding hostage, demanded none of the money could go to planned parenthood where it is sorely needed, right along with the crisis, because we know the disease is sexually transmitted. they demanded that we roll back environmental protections. they demanded we even take more a crisis of ebola, that could pop up at any moment. then they skipped town without a
single penny going to fight zika. we have seen this movie before. this is what they do. they have this hard right group and they are afraid to buck them. the hard right group has nothing to do with what the american people want. remember when they added the language to the trafficking bill ? in september -- it's my guess there was a lot of winking going on to the hard right. democrats will never support this. we will make sure they won't support it. -- what they are
doing is not leadership, it's partisanship, plain and simple. senator mcconnell is in charge. he's really happy he's in charge of the senate. it's his responsibility to get things done. pass a bill -- it's obvious he would never pass to begin with. -- it would never pass to begin with. [inaudible] why aren't we hear? -- here? why aren't we hear compromising, putting together the type of her that already passed the senate for -zika?
starts ragingit -- senator cornyn had a picture of one of the babies on the floor. if he cares about those babies, he will come back. his compromise did not work because it wasn't a compromise. done.ere and get the job instead of heading home for recess. millions of americans exposed to zika. here inans should be washington, working with us to get it done. we are willing to compromise. we know it is an emergency. where are they? it's now my pleasure to turn this over to the executive vice president of planned parenthood. thank you. >> thank you all.
i am the executive vice president of planned parenthood. thank you leader reid, senator schumer. i'm honored to be here to speak on behalf of planned parenthood, one of the nation's leading health providers, providing health care every year to 2.5 million women and men across this country. we serve women, men, and young people who often have nowhere else to go. often we are the only provider that someone will see all year. and we are the front line of defense when it comes to battling zika. on monday, many of you were probably there, we were celebrating when the supreme court said women's health and well-being must be the test for laws and policies that science, not ideology, must guide policy, and america cheered that common sense direction.
today we condemn a bill that does the opposite, that widely ignores the full recommendations of leading medical groups and itviders and could have, if was done right, prevented women and families from being exposed to a dangerous but avoidable fate. in fact, what we saw was an effort that centered mosquitoes and not women when it came to addressing the zika virus. let's talk a little bit about what this bill does not do. it does not provide necessary planning for family planning resources in line with cdc recommendations. it does not give money to the providers best suited to help fight the zika virus, like pro familia in puerto rico. it does not expand the base of providers willing to help, like
a previous bipartisan compromise did. what the health of women and children first by making family planning and condoms as widely available as prevent what is now also a sexually transmitted disease. is allowingnnell his party to undermine the ability of family planning providers like planned parenthood to do what we do best in the midst of this rapidly a public zika virus, health crisis that directly targets women and children. this is shameful. this bill also slashes money from the aca and the ebola crisis, stealing money from one health crisis to pay for another. it really boggles the mind to hear that any qualified family planning provider could be excluded i the republican leadership at this time of great need.
of a news in the face poll released this week from the kaiser family foundation, which shows americans overwhelmingly worried about the zika crisis and asking their government to protect them. let's be clear, the restrictions that were put in this bill to try to carve out providers like plan granted -- planned parenthood and those affiliated or associated with us were not found in the same bill language that senator patty murray's bipartisan compromise put out and passed earlier this summer. these were added by republicans to try to tank this bill. omen in puerto rico, latin america, the caribbean, and in many parts of the united states where zika is expected to hit epseady face significant st
in maternal health services. in latin america, 23 million women have an unmet need for contraception. 55% of newborns do not receive the needed care for these kinds of major health complications that can result from zika. report --onference these realities. as one of the leading health care providers, we know the kind of irreparable harm a politically motivated stunt like can be for women and children. we need a real response that empowers women and stops the zika virus from inflicting suffering on families in america and across the globe. thank you.
>> i was in high school in the late, middle 1950's, anderson, nevada. -- henderson, nevada. he was a kid. we had one high school. maybe 700 kids in it. now that same area has seven high schools averaging 3000 students per school. why do i mention that? days than ing less was in highe i school, when the population of the united states was well below 250 million. weeks?leave for seven it doesn't make sense. we have so many things to do. the country has gotten bigger, more complex,, more problems,
more people. what do the republicans do? we are working less now. less than we did 60 years ago. that's a little hard to take and just walk out of here, leaving national crisis, and that's what it is. we will take some questions. [inaudible] >> senator schumer and i will go to a meeting with a chief of staff, secretary of health and director of the office of management and budget. we are going to try to come up with something. we are going to work really hard. republicans have to get through this crazy house of representatives.
the problem with opioids. we have known it for months. we are going to go to a meeting and talk about that and a few other things. [inaudible] you do a great job of asking questions. situation where people are subject to dying of this disease. we did not with the confederate flag -- we put it in there because it was the right thing to do.
i can't imagine why it would be appropriate for them to take that language out of the bill. [inaudible] it doesn't matter when we did it. for them to take the language out is wrong on a piece of legislation like this. i have a deep respect for you. i can't imagine you are hung up on this when we have all the other problems facing this. we can't spray mosquitoes to kill them. we are taking money from ebola, from obamacare, and you are talking about whether or not we should have but the confederate flag in some other piece of legislation? confederate flag and some other piece of legislation? that's my answer. [inaudible] first of all, the gun issue has
been around for a while, for more than 30 years. the leader of this has been chuck schumer from new york. we have struggled over the years to get something done. it has been an uphill battle with that. is not nearly as deep as it was a month ago. what has happened in the house of representatives is remarkable. they have not finished. they will be back. we now have the house -- in the house of representatives republicans who want to cosponsor a bill almost identical. we are going to get something done this year. think we are going to take a bite out of -- i think they've done enough damage to the country. >> the number of republicans who are splitting with the nra is larger than ever before. and i think leader mcconnell finally this has become, with all the strength of liability, not an
asset to his own members as they seek reelection. [inaudible] anhow can you ask organization that supplies medical care and attention to more than 2 million people a year, and if ever there were a need for planned parenthood, it's now. many of these women have no place else to go. are they afraid? do they want to see if they can get birth control, so they don't get pregnant? where else can they go? that issue alone is pretty strong. at the you look limitations around medicaid providers, many of the states where zika will be hitting the
worst are the places where we don't have medicaid expansion and women already have significantly less access to care. women and families are not going to get a second chance with this disease. take anothern chance, come back, and get this right. it's like saying, granted that the sun is not out, could you still call this day -- i mean, the president said he would veto it. there's enough of a veto to override in the house. here, it was a nonstarter. to put the two parties in equilibrium -- we showed we were willing to compromise. we went down from $1.9 million to 1.1 million dollars. we worked with the republicans and we wentsan way, along with something we did not think was optimal. so this idea that, granted this,
granted that, why don't we go along with the house bill, that's the kind of faulty quality that is not fair. we know what's happened here. you know what's happened here. [inaudible] >> i can't control who meets with who. loretta lynch is one of the mouse outstanding human beings -- most outstanding human beings i've ever known. herne could ever question strong feelings about the law and her ethics, i repeat, are the best. she's from new york. >> she's an honorable person. she has a reputation of being
honorable. our republican colleagues have said it. was discussedng related to the investigation. you have two choices. to say this didn't matter, or she's lying. i say it did not matter. i don't think she's lying. let me tell you about special rules. hillary clinton has put her soul outworking the campaign trail for more than a year now. in spite of the fact that the code others have spent $30 million of money trying to make something out of benghazi that even republicans in the report said amounted to nothing. the e-mails with something drummed up by people trying to denigrate her -- was something drummed up by people trying to denigrate her. she's not afraid to answer questions. look on the other side, you have this ronald johnson. -- donald trump. we are satisfied with this candidate. we think she's pretty damn good.
[inaudible] let me tell you something. if the republicans are that will keep women from being able to go to your clinics they aree country, if going to continue stopping us from processing veterans claims, taking money from ebola, they will ignore advice and counsel on a daily basis from nih, cdc, they better be careful in november. here. a question right [inaudible]
listen, i don't know what the republican leader was thinking yesterday. we don't work many weeks. during those weeks we don't work many days. we will be back for 3 days. going to be we are working friday. we will see. then we come back for another few days next week. in that period of time, he wants to do gmo's, defense appropriations. there is a likelihood possibility we will get on these bills, one of the first ones. if we do that, that recess is gone. we will be on that recess -- this six or seven days we are scheduled to work will go by very quickly. i don't see how you can get the defense appropriations. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]
>> the house and senate out this week for the july 4 recess. roll call says the house plans to vote on guns next week. according to the article, speaker paul ryan said on a conference call with fellow republicans he plans a floor vote next week on a -- on counterterrorism tactics. also according to roll call, when the house returns from its july 4 recess next week, members will also vote on a mental health bill sponsored by republican congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania. lighthouse coverage next tuesday when they are back from legislative work on c-span. today at 2:00 p.m. eastern we will bring you a briefing on the state department from the state department's ambassador to monitor and combat human trafficking. she will be answering questions about the department's 2016 human trafficking report
released today. secretary of state john kerry released that report. here's a bit of that. kerry: when we talk about human trafficking, we are talking about slavery, modern-day slavery that still today claims more than 20 million victims on any given time. million are people just like everybody here. they have names. they have, or had families, in many cases. and they are forced to endure a living hell in modern times that no human being should ever have .o expect in some places, particularly where violent extremists are able to find a contemporary safe , the atrocities are both rampant and overt. recallsr-old survivor
approaching one of her captors in syria, member of the terrorist group daesh, and she pleaded with him to halt the incessant rape of a 12-year-old girl, telling the terrorists, she's just a little girl. he replied, she's not a little girl. she's a salve. -- slave. >> more about the state department's 2016 human trafficking report with the ambassador to monitor and combat human trafficking, life coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern. at 1:00 p.m. eastern, ntsb chairman christopher hart speaks to reporters at the national press club. he will be talking about self driving cars and what they mean for safety on american roads. until then, a conversation from this morning's "washington journal" about britain's decision to leave the european union.
who is a professor at american university school of service and a fellow for the wilson center, in the global europe program. thank you for being here. i want to show you this headline in "the wall street journal" - what is it that the eu is saying to the united kingdom? thise eu is very worried will create a domino effect and others will want a referendum to leave the eu. they are staking out a hard claimant the beginning. any negotiator would do that. that the signals netherlands and france want a referendum as well. host: what does the united kingdom want? what are they want to keep and what do they not want from the eu? >> great britain has always seen
the eu in transactional terms, cost benefits. they wouldthings like is access to a single market. it's all about trade and market access. so, what do they want access to, what type of market? >> so they can sell their product and services. guest: great britain has london which is a key part of the british economy. it is the unbalanced economy because we go mostly financial services. what they don't want is free movement of labor. they don't want labor mobility. they don't want by of people coming into the u.k., presumably eu citizens, and, as some argue, taking british jobs. they want access to the market but they would like to put up a border on immigration and migration labor flows. host: why does the eu say no? guest: the eu was founded on a
treaty and like anything else, there are four freedoms. the most important one is labor. that has been a big fight within the referendum. what can we do about it? the europeans will hold a hard-line. there are several million including 800,000 polls in britain who want to stay. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] great britain putting into the u.k., $400 million per week?to other eu countries we are one much? >> of the largest economies in the eu. other in money but on the hand, we get out a great deal of money. one of the issues we have to face is that we will no longer get agricultural subsidies, low longer get science and educational subsidies. 40% of agricultural firms in britain might become insolvent if we did not have eu funding so it's a two-way flow.
host: is the eu saying definitely you will not get this? these otherrning to countries thinking about doing the same? guest: there were some concerns this moneydon't give to the eu, we can put it into national health. they have retracted that and said we don't think we can do that. the second concern they have is and pharma is a concern science and universities on the promised thateers we will keep up the funding through 2020 but where that money will come from now that markets are fallen and we have a growth of austerity will be an open question. what do you make of the news that boris johnson says he will not run for prime minister? guest: i am surprised because many people put him as an odds on favorite. i think he might have genuinely been surprised by the results
and i think he thought that perhaps by staking his claim on the other side, they would push david cameron to give a date to leave and he would step in. hope for thosehe that did not want to leave the european union, that they are not completely divorced from the eu? how can they negotiate that? there was a house of commons petition within 24 hours, nearly 3 million people said we want a second vote. there are some pundits and some academics who think that given the right circumstances, there may be a second referendum. we've got 16 million on one side and 17 million on the other. , does my firstl vote matter? it has divided the country. will britain pressed the nuclear button and will we formally asked to withdraw?
what other arrangement can we get? host: article 50 is the nuclear button? guest: yes, no matter what you hear about union -- european leaders, we need to this slow and quick. no matter what the french president or the german promised or says, the only person who can push that button is her majesty's government and that's the government in office. right now, david cameron has said i am a lame-duck prime minister and i will not push that button. it will be for the next prime minister. host: how would it unfold? guest: it would be difficult. we would notify the eu and have a two-year window to negotiate a settlement. it's like a divorce and after that, we would have a post divorce settlement about our trade relationship within the eu. it will not be easy. there are many options out there and some people believe, is it possible that perhaps great britain is delaying because it sees the market effect and maybe britain may or may not.
it's a question of how valid is that referendum. are turning around and saying even within the parties themselves that they would like a second referendum on the deal that is negotiated on the hope that the result might be overturned. host: let's get to our calls, henderson, nevada, democrat am a go-ahead. caller: how are you doing? like crying out that we don't want to be detroit. we don't want immigrants to take their jobs. anything.obody to buy it is being called out as a nation and not a city. by leaving, we want to say something before things get so bad. there is cheaper labor and great britain is left out there with nothing. host: any thoughts on that? guest: if you look at the people
who voted to leave, it was a cross-section. most people have focused on the politics of grievance, those have been economic elite left the hind -- the economically left behind. more wealthy areas also voted to leave. it was not just detroit, it was also some of the more wealthy areas. whatwe have to consider will our economic access be. it will be a significant -- a less significant economic power without the eu. we would turn into a mid-atlantic midsize economy. what will be the long-term economic implications? host: ronald, independent caller, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. british, it was all right for them to rule the world and the sun never set on their
the shoe wasw that on the other foot, they were able to immigrate to those countries they conquered but now the immigrants are coming back. it does not set very well with them. as far as trade policies, it's the ceo's, the cfos, the managers and directors of these companies that move production becauseheaper countries they own hundreds of thousands of shares. theirer to increase returns per share, they move the company. , it's thehe workers management and directors that move the company because they want to satisfy the stockholders which they are themselves and percenters who own 1% of
the wealth in the united states. host: you look at trade deals like the transpacific partnership. idea of how trade works and the decisions made, what do you say to that guest:? we now have an integrated economy and global value change. trade deals are significant for the british in this debate. if the british leave, they will have to negotiate more than 20-50 new trade deals. those have been negotiated by the eu and great britain will no longer be a part of that. great britain will have much less leverage. if you're negotiating as a 20th power lock instead of one state, you have more leverage. that thees questions transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations are continuing.
britain is still part of the eu and will still participate in these trade deals. for britain, this is different than what you hear in the united states. we are hearing comments about trade on the campaign trail. stilleople on both sides believe in the importance of the single market whether you are a remain or a brexiteer, it's just the front types of trade. host: in what ways? who want toeople remain like access to the single market and travel without a visa or a passport and like to study abroad and be able to sell abroad and have common standards and rules. did noto want to exit dispute the importance of the single market. they did not like is the free movement of labor, the ability of people from both sides to live, work, and study in europe. the concern they had was the from when they joined in
2004. millione about 2.5 brits who live overseas in the eu and they will be at earthly affected by this. host: what does this -- what is the trade deal between great britain and the united states? guest: i think that will continue because they have british negotiators on the team and they will absolutely continue with this trade deal. doesbrexit put a wrench in the works? yes, there is a level of uncertainty. it's aain leaves the eu, voice for liberalization that becomes missing within the eu. they are one of the strongest proponents of trade liberalization. anwill have somewhat of impact on the internal dynamics of the eu as well. host: to give our viewers an overview of this eu -- u.s. trade deal -- guest: many people are familiar
ttip has trade irritants and rules that are different. what the hope is is to try to have not a race to the bottom but to have some safety and environmental rules that are compatible to make it easier to do business on both sides of the atlantic but also to protect consumers. it's a whole range of sectors. some global create rules, particularly for third country markets. is a concern for them that they want to be rule makers, not rule takers. host: back to the calls, pittsburgh, republican. i think wed morning, have a remainer speaking to us
and so am i. i'm sorry to see david cameron go. about the worry bumper sticker that says people voted against it to keep immigrants out. there is much more to the eu them that. free trade zone is one thing. genet's dream of the united states is quite another. what other regulations come from the european commission? thathe european parliament are imposed upon britain and the other member states that britain sovereignty in and the other eu countries? how difficult are those to deal with? how much do they cost? guest: you're absolutely right, this was not just about immigration. there were very few exit polls
but the ones we see, it was immigration, it was sovereignty, it was a sense of getting our country back, it was a whole variety of issues. some people think it was a politics of protest. they were protesting about their economic situation in the u.k. and the decline of public services like health care. the eu does not get involved in health services. in talking about being a remainer, i came from a 49nstituency that voted 51- from depressed and affluent areas and i saw how the vote was going to split. i think this had multiple causes. some of them go back a decade or two. some of them are concerns about the overregulation of the eu. we might also think about the way the press and the politicians have talked about the eu for a long time. if you're going to be negative, it is hard last two months to change public opinion.
that's not to say the eu is not distant from most people but i would suggest that is not only rustles distant, london is distant. i am from the north and we don't see the eu on the ground if there -- in either. it's a multiple set of issues but there is a generational split three of most people who are 18-25, 75% of them voted to remain. those over 55 voted to leave area there is a generational split but there is also a regional split between the london and scotland in the sort of every i come from outside of liverpool which voted to leave predominantly. host: we have aligned this morning for international viewers -- jim from pennsylvania, independent. caller: good morning.
i had to topics i wanted to ask .bout are i was taken back by all the people wanting a re-vote and they are not accepting the outcome. maybe it's part of today's society that they don't accept when they lose. onish they would just move in the fashion the people voted for. secondly, earlier on your programming, there was some information regarding campaign financing for mr. trump. i'm not sure if that was true or not. is there anyway you can verify or dispute the claims about mrs. clinton and her ties with the saudi arabia money and yemen? host: that's a whole mother conversation. right now we are focusing on the fallout from the brexit vopte.
they lost. that's they not trusting what u.k. voters want? when it is that close a vote, it was going to be divisive. in britain, our electoral were a long time coming. this is a debate about europe. europe crosses across region so been onerobably of the most divisive in politics for a long time so most people thought this was a momentous decision. after an election were four or five years, you can change your mind, this one was a binary referendum. it was yes or no. it's a very close vote. some people want to do over but if you have a do over, how many people will regret that decision
now that the markets have changed and how many people will stick with the same decision? it's an open question. host: massachusetts, independent, what do you think? caller: i think this question dovetails nicely into the question that was posted earlier about trade. i am happy to hear the words race to the bottom for the first time in an hour. that is what i see happening. we have trade deals and we have eu item and it seems that people are upset because they see all around them a race to the bottom where corporations make great deals for themselves but the people don't get what they need which is a place to live, roof over their heads, food to eat, health care, etc. while other people make massive
amounts of money. that is what the trade deal seems to do. one thing to remember with this particular trade deal, the europeans have had a large movement particularly in germany and austria. is that they don't want a race to the bottom and they want certain cultural standards and the don't want genetically modified foods. there has been a hard look within the eu about transparency , lifting civil society. one has to remember that the unions on both sides will look at this carefully. looking at this issue in 2013, the european and theion corporation afl-cio were actually working together to think about how we can put labor and environmental rights in the trade agreement. in terms of the notion of race to the bottom, something
europeans don't want to hear about and have been vocal about, the concern that i have as well is that a lot of the british decline has been over the last 20-30 years. it has not necessarily been a result of trade deals but we have seen a de-industrialization in the heart of britain with a shift to the service economy, the high-paying city of london, architects, accountants, and lawyers but we have also seen what we think are the more general service economy with wage compression and lower wages. we have seen that in the u.k. and we have seen the decline of manufacturing like shipbuilding and steel and so forth. that has been a 30 year decline in the u.k. we havebably the fact an unbalanced economy between the more prosperous london areas and those outside. host: transpacific partnership,
that is pending and that will be part of a discussion at the cato institute today. coming up at 9:00 a.m. eastern, we will have coverage of it on c-span3 with the u.s. trade representative. europe ortpp mean for the united states, for the global economy? guest: in some ways, some people argue that because tpp was the asia rebalance that obama was doing that there was some concerns that the europeans had with the lack of progress on the issue of something similar. it followed on the heels of that. it's covering a whole spectrum of issues from small and medium companies to state owned enterprises to has medics and medical devices. there is a lot of coverage so one could argue that u.s. has pushed this and it's part of the asia strategy.
europeans have responded. finalized also now canadian trade deal. itsas also decided to re-up trade agreement with mexico so it is responding to what is happening tpp in the. host: arlington, virginia, republican. and away, the british are a magnifier of what's going on in the united states switching the economy to a service economy. it's more extreme in britain but it's happening here as well. this vote wasthat a rejection of the establishment big-time. and they still refuse to work on it. the bbc is terrible on this.
they are hooked on the remainder campaign. they have had articles lately that look for the most minute things to say they are a bunch of racist who voted for this. they have to get over it. they are talking about scotland. vote and someone brought up northern island but everyone back off of that. i think they have to get their act together. >> you can see all of this program online at www.c-span.org . "washington journal" his live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will take you live to the national press club and the national transportation safety board chairman talking about driverless cars. he is being introduced with live coverage on c-span. >> please hold your applause until i finish introducing the entire table. from your right, jeff, a
bloomberg news reporter. a washingtonnt, correspondent for advanced media. a transportation reporter at w amu. katie leslie of the dallas morning news. hart, the better half of today's speaker. bloomberg breaking news reporter. keene, bloomberg white house correspondent. she organized the luncheon. sean riley, a reporter for environment and energy publishing. kessler from scripps news. strategic officer of social driver and a member of the press board of governors and
who coverserdson, automobiles and technology, thank you all. [applause] national transportation safety board chairman christopher hart has been in this role for a little over a year and already has made his mark in a job that 10 involve chasing the latest robins and being frustrated when it comes to preventing them. 400 and has a staff of is an independent federal agency that investigates significant accidents involving railroads, highways, u.s. waters, and airplanes. the board was called into action this week to probe a fiery head-on crash between two freight trains in texas. the agency determines the probable cause of the incident and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. in addition, the ntsb studies some transportation safety and coordinates the resources of the
federal government and other organizations to provide assistance to the victims and their families affected by major transportation disasters. he is the great-nephew of james herman vanning, the first african american to receive a u.s. pilots license in 1926. he was killed in a crash during an air show before he was born but aviation must've gone through the family genes. hart is a licensed commercial pilot. he has been in the federal aviation administration. he worked for the national highway traffic safety administration which may have sparked interest and what he is here today to talk about, autonomous vehicles. that a wild, wild west hold potential for improving highway safety but also poses a lot of questions. who is liable if a crash occurs? technologys if a that is supposed to help people drive more safely ends up having
the opposite effect? how autonomousus vehicles can benefit from other modes of transportation. aviation is the most automated mode but most other modes use some form of automation. give a warm national press club welcome to the national transportation safety board chairman, christopher hart. [applause] .> thanks to all of you for coming. national presse club for inviting me to speak on behalf of the ntsb. it's a privilege and honor to be here. when they invited me come i warned them they will have trouble shutting me up but they did it anyway. i'm an attorneys of that means my credo is never use one word when to will suffice. [laughter] today i would like to speak about driverless cars. i will call them driverless cars.
i want to talk about how the ntsb can help the process of ringing them onto our streets and highways. by doing this, i don't suggest we are looking for work. our plate is already full but icing just we could be a valuable resource. to put my remarks in context, i will tell you what the ntsb does. nts b is an independent federal agency that oversight -- overseas all modes of transportation. we do all modes of transportation and we do that to determine what caused the accident and make recommendations to prevent them from happening again. . our primary product is recommendations. our world-class investigators don't like to give up until they have the answer and have found out what caused the accident. the recommendations they create that thempelling
recipients respond favorably to our recommendations more than 80% of the time even though they don't have to. they are not required to do that. they do that more than 80% of the time and we like to think the implementation of our recommendations has helped to make transportation saver for all of us. personally, it's a privilege and honor to be here because we have such world-class investigators and they do all the hard work and i get all the credit. what's not to like? this is from the context of our experience as accident investigators. driverless cars are coming, no doubt about it. the potential for improvement is amazing. cars can save many of most of the 32,000 lives lost every year on our streets and andways, 32,000, a tragic unacceptable number that has been decreasing for several years but has recently taken a turn in the wrong direction. driverless cars could increase the amount of traffic our roads
can safely carry. instead of maintaining a car length separation for every 10 miles per hour, driverless cars could reduce that. stay tuned for the other amazing changes that might be possible. ideally, that might happen with automation. most crashes on our roads are due to driver error. the theory of driverless cars is that if there is no driver. on the ntsb most wanted list of transportation safety improvement -- fatigue, distraction, impairment, and fitness for duty. the automation in driverless cars will also address another item which is improved collision avoidance technology. decades of experience and a variety of contexts has demonstrated that automation can improve safety, reliability, productivity, and efficiency. that experience has demonstrated
that there can be a downside. as noted by a world-renowned expert in complex human systems, to compensateorts for the unreliability of human performance, the designers of automated control systems have unwittingly created opportunities for new error types that can be more serious than those they were seeking to avoid." our investigation experience provides three lessons learned that support these statements. the theory ofhat removing human error by removing the human assumes that the automation is working as designed. what if the automation quits or fails? will it fail in a way that is safe but t? will the operator be aware of the failure in a timely matter and then be able to take over to avoid a crash? example of the automation failing occurred here in washington.
you may remember the metro crash inr the fort thomas station 2009 the tragically killed the train operator and 10 passengers. , the train became electronically invisible. we found it was called a parasitic oscillation in the electronics. i never heard of this in my minor as an electrical engineer. the symbolappened, of the train disappeared from the display board in the central dispatch center. when a train becomes invisible, and alarm sounds. the problem is the alarm sounded several hundred times per day so that was ignored it when the trend became electronically invisible, there is no alarm and did notn behind it regarded so the operator was unaware of the disappearance of this train. based on the electronically unoccupied track, the automation
in the train behind began accelerating to the maximum speed for that area by the time the operator saw the stopped train and applied the emergency brake after coming around a curve, it was too late. another lesson learned in support of the statement is that even if the operator is removed, humans are still involved in designing the vehicle, manufacturing, maintaining, and they are involved in the same functions with respect to the streets and highways. at these points of human engagement, it presents another opportunity for human error. human erin these steps are likely to be more systemic in its effe which could mean it involves several vehicles. could be more difficult to select -- to correct. moveromated people will -- people mover had improper maintenance.
they had no operator that it still had a crash caused by some other point of information -- of intervention of human error. the most fundamental lesson learned from the accident investigation experience is that introducing automation into complex human centric systems can be very challenging. most of the systems we investigate are becoming increasingly automated but they are not yet fully automated. as a result, we have seen that the challenges can be more difficult in a system that has substantial human operator involvement and is not completely automated. partialns involving automation with substantial human involvement have -- 2strated 21 extreme extremes. it reveals that the human is the most unreliable part of the system. and counters unanticipated circumstances, highly trained and proficient human operator can save the day by being the most adaptive heart of the system.
-- the most adaptive part of the system. there is the example of captain in theerger's landing hudson river because both of his engines were taken up by birds. in star contract, -- in stark flight 447ir france from rio de janeiro to paris in 2009. aftercare france 447 reach cruise altitude of 37 house and feet over the atlantic and began approaching distant thunderstorms, the captain left the cut it for a scheduled rest break. in doing so, he gave control to less experienced pilots. to airplane had tubes provide information about how fast it is going. airspeed information is so important that there were three tubes for redundancy. the tubes repeated in order to ensure that they were not disabled by ice.
at the ambient temperatures of -50 degrees and with abundant supercooled water from the nearby thunderstorms, they were overwhelmed and the tubes became clogged with ice and the airplane no longer knew how fast was going. loss of airspeed information caused several system to quit as they were designed to do when they don't have reliable information which included the automatic pilot and the automatic throttle that was maintaining the speed. as a result, the pilot suddenly had to fly the airplane manually. the loss of airspeed information rendered in operative automatic protection that prevented the airplane from entering an aerodynamic stall where the wings did not produce lift. the pirates -- the pilots responded inappropriately to the laws of the systems and the result was a crash that killed all 228 on board. as with most accident we investigate, several factors played a role. the redundancy of having three
tubes was not effective because all three were taken out by a common cause. in addition, the pilots had not experienced this type of failure before even in training where the problem can be simulated in realistic simulators. they were unable to figure out just what went wrong. pilote of the automatic is mandatory at cruise altitudes but the pilots had never flown manually at that altitude before even in training in a simulator. this is important because the airplane behaves differently at cruise than it does at low altitudes than during takeoff or landing. other issues compounded the problem and led to the tragic outcome of the loss of 228 people. hadn aside, the tubes frozen before in the type of airplane but the pilots in those encounters responded successfully. consequently, the entire fleet was scheduled for the installation of more robust heaters but given that the
previous encounters were successful, and emergency replacement was not considered necessary. with the background on how automation can be good and bad news, let me turn to how the ntsb can help inform the process of moving toward driverless cars. just explained, we offer considerable experience regarding the introduction of automation into complex human centric systems. our investigations involve relatively structured systems with highly trained operators who have various requirements regarding proficiency, fatigue, impairment, distraction, and fitness for duty. given that human drivers will probably eat in the loop for some time to come, i would sing just that is difficult is that transition has been, it may be even more challenging in a public arena in which drivers are usually not highly trained and maybe fatigue or impaired or distracted or not medically fit.
some human drivers may always be in the loop is they would rather not use the automation. the second way the ntsb can help relates to collaboration. the automobile industry has recognized the importance of collaboration as shown by the collaborative approach regarding autonomous emergency braking. our experience with commercial aviation may help improve it further. let's talk about where we have seen collaboration in aviation. the most recent fatal u.s. airline crash occurred in 2009. more than once in recent years, the commercial aviation industry has gone years in a row without a single passenger for talented -- fatality. automation has played an important role but much of the industry's exemplary safety record is attributable to collaboration. in the early 1990's after the industry's accident rate had been declining, it began to flatten and plateau.
the federal aviation administration was predicting that the volume of flying would double in 15-20 years. the industry became concerned that if the volume doubled while the accident rate remained the same, the public would see twice as many airplane crashes. it does not help to go to the public and say don't worry, the rate is low but the public answer number of times they see crashed airplanes on the news. that caused the industry to do something that has never been done on an industrywide level before or since. pursued a voluntary, collaborative industrywide approach to improving safety. this occurred largely because david hinson who is the administrator of the faa realized away to get off the plateau was not more regulations are a bigger stick but instead, to figure out a better way to improve safety in a complex aviation system. the voluntary collaborative
players,ings all the the airlines, the manufacturers, the pilots, the air traffic controllers, and the regulators to the table to do four things. first, identify potential safety issues. second, prioritize the issues. they realized they would identify more than they have the resources to fix. third, develop interventions and forthcoming evaluate whether the interventions were working. cas process has been an amazing success and resulted in a reduction of the fatality rate by more than 80% in less than 10 years. occurred despite the fact that the plateau was already considered to be exemplary and many thought the rate did not decline further. the process improve not only safety product tivoli -- product , a major challenge of making improvements in complex systems is the possibility of
unintended consequences. this generated very few unintended consequences. last but not least, the success occurred largely without generating any new regulations. as an observer, the ntsb can help the auto industry determine how much this aviation success story is transferable to their industry. one size may not fit all. the airlines don't compete regarding safety. they never advertise that. automobile manufacturers do you always see advertising that their cars are safer. in the reduction fatality rate a compass by cas, even the one size me not fit all, is a powerful example of how much can be accomplished relatively quickly involuntary collaboration. another difference is that the aviation regulatory framework is largely federal whereas collaboration regarding driverless cars will need to
include participation by the state. way the ntsb can help the process of introducing automation relates to onboard event recorders. our investigations are significantly enhanced when we have event recorders to tell us what happened. airliners have had black boxes which are actually orange for decades. it records the aircraft grandmothers and the sound in the cockpit. other transportation modes are increasingly being introduced as well as audio and video recorders. will be difficulties encountered as automation is introduced, the more the industry knows about what went right and what went wrong from the recorders and the more the industry will be able to fashion remedies that effectively address the problem. consistent with another item our -- our most wanted list, expand the use of recorders, we would encourage the use of robust onboard recorders to help the process. event recorders at in other
modes of transportation introduce significant issues involving privacy and the appropriate use of recorder data. our sensitivity to these issues has helped to inform the conversation in commercial trucking and can help improve driverless vehicles as well. in closing, rather than waiting for actions to happen with driverless cars, the ntsb has already engaged with the industry and regulatory agencies to inform how driverless cars can be safely introduced into america plus transportation system. in human centric systems and our appreciation of the power of collaboration and our understanding of the importance of onboard event recorders position the ntsb to provide valuable assistance in this process. thank you again for inviting me to speak to gay and i would be happy to answer any questions. [applause] >> thank you, mr. chairman.
we have a lot of questions today. i hope you are ready. >> this is my favorite part. >> let's start off with an easy question. what scares you the most about autonomous cars? >> there is no single thing that scares me the most because the whole process will be very complicated. i think people are wildly underestimating the complexity of bringing automation into the system involving joe public. it's the total picture. it's unnerving and that's why i think we have a great opportunity to help because we can transfer the success story from other modes to help it happened better in this mode. >> u.s. regulators in the automobile companies have huge hopes that autonomous cars will improve safety. is there a worry that the first fatal crash may bring goal enterprise down? is it likely that people will thereact to this despite
are 30 thousand hwy fatalities we are used to every year? >> the first fatal crash will certainly get a lot of attention. this train has left the station. there will be fatal crashes. stoppedthink it will be just by a crash here and there especially because it's probably happening at a lower rate than with human involvement. best way toe demonstrate that autonomous vehicle technology is safe. should google cars be held to a higher human standard? >> so many people will have to work together. anybody who's involved in a problem should be in the vault -- involved in developing as -- a solution. they have to make sure they are
generating safety as much as possible. >> driverless cars are likely to be on the road before states have regulatory regimes in place. statese the first steps should take to handle regulatory complexities especially with human drivers and driverless cars on the road? >> egg goes back to collaboration. -- it goes back to collaboration. you have to have your hand on the wheel in one state and not in another state. there will have to be uniformity across state lines and that collaboration will help generate that . it will take many people working together and it will be more complicated than aviation. that was federal. in states, it will be more complicated. in the united states, we see a patchwork of a lot of laws governing different things. states sometimes don't work together. do you fear the idea of driving from utah to colorado where
there is a difference and then you are breaking the law when you're not in another state because they didn't work together? >> i think it will be an evolutionary process that goes back to collaboration. it will take time but it will be a collaborative process were the states realize how much it will hurt their commerce if they don't join this effort collaboratively. >> i'm getting handed a million more questions. [laughter] >> you are not having as much fun as i am. >> i'm interested in learning the ntsbt what steps has taken regarding self driving cars and motorcycles. is it safe to assume that self driving cars can detect motorcyclist? scenarios or precautions are used to account for individual riders on motorcycles as well as groups of motorcycles? >> in my experience generally, the driverless cars are made to
recognize anything out there that could be an issue. it could be a pedestrian or add dear or anything that moves that is a potential problem. motorcycles will be part of that. willriverless cars will have to figure out how to operate in the environment they are in. that environment is so variable. >> do you expect some pushback from municipal governments that count on speeding tickets for revenue? [laughter] >> good question. next question? [laughter] >> we will put that down as a no comment. what is your prediction on the rate of adoption for driverless cars? how think people are unde and when this will happen. when we willking be totally driverless, it will take longer than people think and it will be more complex.
it's hard to put a time on it. from inform the process other modes of transportation, it will be a smoother ride. >> we were chatting before the lunch i was told that by my age, i would have a flying skateboard and flying cars. how do you educate the populace that this is not science fiction. >> education will be a big issue. does my 13-year-old daughter need to learn how to drive or will it be driverless when she is driving? not in her case because that is three years but for someone who has a one-year-old, that is a question. question thatlex will require this collaborative effort to a dress of these big issues. culture, how pop
do you see driverless cars changing society and culture and infrastructure? >> i think the ability to have cars be much closer in spacing will hugely increase the efficiency of the use of the infrastructure. i see big differences there. the social scientists are looking at all sorts of ramifications of this. do i even need to own a car or do i just call a car and say i need to go to work in one shows up. i can call a car to go home from work. that could be a huge change in the way our society works. will individual car ownership in necessary? will it increase our resources? being usedyour car one hour per day and then parked in the garage, the use of the car will be more of the day and far more efficient utilization of our resources.
there are many potential variations that i could not begin to know where this exciting concept will go. >> do you think autonomous vehicle should have a license driver in the drivers seat or should they just be a carpool driver for children or elderly or don't who can't want to drive. >> eventually, when this is figured out, you will not need someone -- you can be junk now and have a driverless car take you someplace because you will not do the driving. in time, we are going to reach a point where many of the cars do not have a steering will or breaks. that will not be anytime soon so humans have to play a significant role. if your car is mostly driving
and it's in a rainy street and it cannot see the lane markings, will it tell you that you need to take over in time for you to do that? that's one of the big challenges of automation is how the operator knows when they need to take over and will the operator be able to take over. >> is the bigger benefit of autonomous vehicles the safety on the road or the economy or changes in the savings and infrastructure? >> i can speak to the safety aspect. of savingpossibility 32,000 lives per year or more. it's a number that starting to go the wrong way. that's what i will speak to and that's why we are interested in this and we see an amazing opportunity for us to inform the process with what we've learned in other modes of transportation. >> the ntsb does not get involved with the vast majority of vehicle car wrecks.
as driverless cars become more common, with what will the board's role be too reviewed car wrecks? highway crashes, there are many more than we have staff to look at the we look at the ones that have systemic implications. probably where we will go with driverless cars and we will look at the systemic implications that give us an opportunity to inform the process and make it better. one of the contribute factors of the asiatic crash landing a few years ago in san francisco was the pilots became too dependent on automation. do you guard against people losing the skills they might need to drive with the rising driverless vehicles? >> as we transition to full and . when that issue will be take some it will
experience and learning from ifer modes to make sure that there is a situation that the driver needs to take over, the driver knows it's time to take over and the driver is in a position to take over. >> we are talking about driverless vehicles are self driving cars but what about trucks? i have seen that already in the trade press. they are talking about self driving trucks. several amusement parks of self driving buses so that is a reality. i see that is a definite possibility. . do you have any insights on the ethics of autonomous car decision-making? for example, the algorithms of making a decision to save the
writer in the vehicle or other cars and pedestrians? >> we will have to play that by year. by ear.ar - your driverless car going to run into the 80,000 pound truck or go on the sidewalk were 25 pedestrians are? all the driverless car have basic end button? that will be a serious issue. today, if a driver chose to go on the sidewalk to avoid the truck, the driver would probably not face charges for avoiding hitting the truck. if the software makes that decision, how will that happen? question and a vast our a of legal and have that will have to be addressed through the collaboration. include peopleto
and include a variety of people that if they are involved, they need to be involved in the solution. we started off, who is responsible in a crash? car, ore driver, the pushing the button? >> i am a lawyer and i would have to be go after the legal question. i will pass on that. on that note, will driverless cars require legislation precluding class-action lawsuits in this case? >> i see a variety of legislation that will be necessity by driverless cars. it will be a huge shift for everybody. right now, we have the difference that some states say you have to have your hands on the wheel and others don't. a lotthere is a need for of legislative action. it will be at the state level but maybe also at the federal level. does the ntsb need any
statutory authority to take the role in regulating something like driverless cars? >> i cannot answer that. i don't know what the limits are now but it would not surprise me if there will be some federal legislation the changes as well. there shouldnk ever be a reason that drivers should be checking social media like facebook or some e-mails. if not, should the government step in to ban those sex 70's? should that be left to the on them build makers? >> when the car is completely driverless, that will be a moot point. that evencommended hands-free cell phone use should be banned in all states. most states ban texting because that causes accidents. to are 23 times more likely
have a crash then when you are concentrating. most states prohibit texting and some prohibits cell phones. we think even with hands-free cell phones, your mind is on your call and not on your driving. how is that different than the person next to me? a next you has another set of eyes and nose you are in a whereas the area person on the other end of the phone has no clue. it is usually different than speaking to the person next to you. ♪ let's talk about >> onboard event recorders. what kind of data with the ntsb likes he collected. what about the privacy concerns of consumers with these recording devices? >> privacy issues are ones we had to deal with an aviation because they have had the black boxes and airplanes for decades. so far, we have not had any breach of information that created a privacy concern.
we have shown that the industry has shown an ability use that information carefully and we use it only for one purpose which is to figure at what caused the accident so we can keep that from happening again. the owner would be the airline but the law does not allow us to do anything with the box except used to improve safety. you have referred to collaboration several times. what kind of collaboration is already happening? the example i used was for -- o thomas breaking autonomous breaking. the 80% reduction in fatal accidents was a primary result of that collaboration. we know how powerful voluntary collaboration can be and this agreement which reaches over 90% of the cars that are being made,
that is huge to have it happen as quickly as it did. it would never happen that quickly if it awaited a regulatory result area what is the best way you see two resumes -- reduce usb who crashes? ♪ automation. [laughter] just to be more specific, for 20 years, we have been pushing for something that is a collision at -- a collision avoidance system which is a warming -- a warning anyway to stop the vehicle. we have talked about that subject for more than 20 years. collision avoidance technology is step number one. that's one of the foundations for moving to driverless cars. >> let's talk about trains. despite several hope i file crashes -- high-profile crashes,
they still are running through cities. should trains carrying crude oil be banned from traveling through densely populated downtown areas in the united states? ♪ aphid is a discovery of oil in north caret dachshund north dakota, we saw more crude oil train derailments. mile-long train might stall but it's a mile-long train now of nothing but crude oil. if one car bridges, it only takes one car and put product in the environment. something ignites that product and the other cars are in a thermal environment that encourages this. step number one is the key to train on the tracks. step number two is to have more robust tank cars. we need to address the emergency response community because some of these accidents occur in the middle of nowhere.
we have to go after this and start pushing this time because of the increase in the carrying of crude oil but also, we have an amazing increase in ethanol because of the law of reducing our dependency on oil. we now have trains from the corn states. that caused a huge rise in trains carrying hazardous materials. the case that i carried in was the same you used to carry in olive oil. the first step is to keep the train on the track. it talks about track maintenance and wheel and axle maintenance and doing everything you can to keep the train on track. there was another train crash this week that may have been prevented.
thatou frustrated railroads have gotten congress to extend the deadlines for them to have positive train control in places where pastor rail safety requires it? >> we have been pushing this since the late 1960's. our most wanted list in 1990, it was on that list and -- and has been there on a considerable basis. we need to do this by the end of 2015. nobody finished it by 2015. yes, it is an ongoing challenge. we call it a challenge and that's what keeps us going. we know we have the opportunity to move the needle. washington, the metro has a few issues. it today myself. >> but you are early. >> metro has been using manual operations for a while.
position on using automated operations on public real systems? the first place we saw it was in airport trains. i can remember when elevators had operators. we look at the safest way to do it whether it is automation. when you go manual, it means you will have more jerky rise because the starts and stops are more jerky. comparing it to other automated .rains, they are smooth our concern is safety. what's the safest way to do it? when they realize it was not doing as supposed to, time to go back to the manual.
would you appraise the performance of the fta so far in their safe tracking program. >> we have a recommendation after the event in lemfant plasma, we don't think the federal transit administration is well-suited to oversee this transit property. transit of federal existence, they had no safety authority. they were a funding agency to build infrastructure. for most of that time, they had safety authority. accident, fort totten the transportation companies have no safety oversight and we recommended the fta seek that assistance. many states already do.
fta safetyreated the authority, they said let's not dismantle his whole state -- state system because it's working pretty well. that's easy when there is only one stake involved. in some situations, two states are involved. they have reached an agreement. three --diction has maryland, d.c., and virginia and our difficult people to hurt. we are looking for an immediate let the and we want to federal railroad administration do it because they don't work through the states of megan do it more directly than federal transit administration west to work for the three jurisdictions to enact alert -- legislation and have an agreement to work together and that might happen by the time my 13-year-old daughter graduates from high school. we want more immediate action and we think the way to get that
is let the federal railroad administration overseas this because this has peoples of -- people showing up for one of three purposes. >> the ntsb under your predecessor gave attention to drunk driving as distinct from drunken-driving. now that marijuana is legal in many states, does there need to be a legal national limit to decide who is too impaired to drive? in every mode of transportation, we've seen a troubling up tick in the use of drugs. colorado legalized marijuana so we are concerned that that will cause us to see more use of drugs in transportation accidents3+. one troubling example was the truck accident were 80,000 pounds of truck crossed over the median on the interstate and hit an ongoing bus area the truck driver was killed.
we found paraphernalia in the truck and now is the only way we knew this chart driver was using a synthetic drug area we trace it from the paraphernalia. this is one that's available legally over the counter at a truck stop. and it impairing drug can be obtained illegally on the highway. we are challenged with drugs we don't have a good understanding of how they work. we can now look at alcohol and we canna and tell, reverse engineer what the state has for the time and is of the accident. there are lots of issues regarding drugs that are troubling. we are seeing a troubling uptick in every mode of transportation. what do you see as the
board's greatest weaknesses? how will it be him -- impacted by hillary clinton or donald trump in the white house? >> our challenges oh east trying to figure out was the best next or action to go. if a lot of oil trains are coming out, we will see a lot of derailments3+. rail stuff may not have been ready for that certain spark in a workload so we try to the -- to figure out so we are ready to handle that very building arrives. which recommendations, which mode of transportation has been most respective to showing your recommendations? >> more than 80% of the time, our recommendations are responded to favorably by dona brecht on and how that goes. -- i have a break down on how
far that goes but i would have to get back to you with a more detailed breakdown. >> let's talk about those who don't. why do you think some federal agencies and congress are not receptive following recommendations? told us that we only look at safety. regulators have to look of the total picture and not just the safety picture. they have to look at the totalitarian circumstances. they want us to provide an answer in the safety world and safety is not the only answer. contention between us and the regulators so i give you does to congress by creating it that way. if the regulators and industry were doing 100% of what we recommended, that means something is probably broken. beingeans we are not safety only enough for the regulator is safety only too much. if 60% of our recommendations
are being responded to favorably, probably something is broken there. the experts would agree that around 80% is correct to show that the tension that congress created between us and the industry is working. hand on theave our poles of the economic reality. ground first recommended proximity warning's on airplanes that warns the ground too fast. debtors something about it. when we first started that recommendation, these were they bulky things that you can put on a 747 but you will not put them on a 1900 seat airplane. when we made that recommendation, we limited it to the big airplanes. as technology improves and the at smaller and cheaper and better, we started recommending them on all planes. decimal -- decimal point. we had to have our finger in the pulse of connective reality.
do you think the ntsb should be given more than advisory power? t. people ask me that a lot and our process is good precisely because it is not mandatory. people don't ignore us more than 8% of the time. mandatory, there is something wrong with telling us we have to be safety only. it's a good idea we are not mandatory and that's a i am proudest of because our staff knows if it is not a good idea, people won't do it. in march but you have been anti-ntsb a while. how would you assess the obama administration record on safety. >> all of the industries are
improving in their safety. that is really good news one of the problems that is generic across the modes is that regulations have to go through the office of management and budget. it has a cost-benefit test. if the industry get safer, we know that filters getting more challenging. if we send a recommendation that .ays require deadight say where are the reason there are not any, that stops the regulation. i think we need to have a conversation about the needs to be a cost-benefit filter in. we need to have a conversation about how to update the cost than if it to make it more realistic. caused abenefit test split in the fatigue
requirements in bigger planes. if you're flying a big has injured airplane, you have and ate priorities area cargo airplane, if it collides with another big airplane, it will be add as if it were carrying passengers. how many cargo airlines have we seen the crash fatigue as opposed to how a big airplanes? it's a demo way to ask the question. the process can improve by being updated with the new realities. any advice to reporters covering accidents being investigated by the ntsb. most of the industries we deal with have a huge problem because of the strong effort on sensationalism. example, when airplane american airlines, itshed in kelly god columbia
was a difficult environment and took a long time people to get out there. when they got there, bodies have been there for some time. they found alcohol in the pilot lied. that was big front-page news. b6,,days later, i'm page the alcohol was putrid vacation alcohol and not thinking alcohol. beenilot and company has sullied because people think they were drunk. the accuracy of the coverage is crucial. we is to be in control the information more than we are we are not so much anymore. the crash in colorado was on youtube before we were formally notified. so much for being in control the information.
video in the night or -- recorders were in good shape so we get the information out and found that the pilot was low inflow which means it was verified by the video. we are very transparent and went on and said we have found from the cut it was recorded and changes.and determined the airline is on the media saying it was fine two days after the crash. we don't have a clue. they said the airplane was fine but we said, there math is low and slow. we said low inflow. the airline said the airplane was ok. we had no control over what the airline said. information flow will be a challenge.
everybody is trying to be first but accuracy is for better. that's one of our big challenges. sensationalism seems to carry the day more than we would like it to. >> so you are saying caution. you said 80% of recommendations are taken but 20% are not. is it frustrating to make the same recommendations over and over again? >> we call that a challenge. we are here to generate challenges. twa 800 that explored over long island sound, as a result, ting the fueld iner tank because it was a fuel tank explosion. it was very hot because this airplane have been sitting on the ramp at kennedy for two hours while there were trying to make sure the passengers were on
and they matched their bag and there was the air-conditioning blasting over this central fuel tank. that air-conditioner puts out heat3 it cools the cabin but it generates heat. now, you got the oxygen from the atmosphere and fuel and someplace a sparking from above that tank was dangerously close to a point where it would have gone with them a spark it was dangerously close to that. boeing says they put the air-conditioner in that position because they want to heat up the gas tank. the air-conditioner was placed ngere so we recommended inerti the fuel tank so the empty spaces not atmosphere.
back then, they set impossible but we knew it wasn't. the military had done this for a long time. that started the conversation and the research but today they are doing it. and when wepush think it can be done, we will keep going until it is done3+ let's switch back to driverless. cars. are you concerned that the ntsb might be left out of the race for recommendations with driverless cars? biggest advantage of using us is taking advantage of our knowledge of other modes. i'm not concerned about is being left out. if people do not take advantage of us and our experience, they are missing a valuable opportunity to avoid the bumps in the road that we have seen in other modes. >> there is a big difference between someone driving an airplane and a train versus consumers who are going to work and driving on occasion.
that must be more of an education process in manufacturing to take on. think it will be more challenging to introduce automation into a public arena then in the situations we have seen where it's introduced in a structured situation with requirements for fatigue and distraction. there are lots of things that these professionals who are there because they are highly trained, that will be a different environment, doing it with joe public. before asked the last question, i have a few announcements. the national press club is the world leading professional organization for journalist and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information, visit pres.org.
we have some upcoming programs garye week from today, johnson and his running mate for the libertarian party will be here. will speake rogers at a press club luncheon and on august 1, jonathan johnson -- jonathan jarvis, the director of the parks service will address the club. i. would like to present you with the traditional press club mug [applause] >> this is why i was chuckling earlier. have you seen terminator two? are you thinking that cars to become smarter than us? >> know, i have not seen terminator 2, they will be smarter than us, but i am not afraid of it. it will be a good thing. [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the staff of the journalism institute.